Introduction: Second Language Development as a Dynamic Process Author(s): Kees De Bot Reviewed work(s): Source: The Modern Language

Journal, Vol. 92, No. 2 (Summer, 2008), pp. 166-178 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25173021 . Accessed: 17/01/2013 00:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Introduction: Development
KEES DE BOT
University Faculty P.O. Box of Groningen ofArts 716

Second Language as a Process Dynamic

Applied Linguistics Department of 9700AS Groningen

The Netherlands Email: c.l.j.de.bot@rug.nl

some of the basic characteristics of complex In this contribution, systems, collectively adaptive de are discussed. Such labeled (DST), systems are self-organizing, Dynamic Systems Theory The and show emergent on initial conditions, sometimes chaotic, they properties. pendent over time. is seen as a dynamic is on development focus in DST system, and language Language of as a A number of examples and attrition, both acquisition process. dynamic development, are mentioned. After a short in the field of applied of DST linguistics applications possible are discussed. some lines of research of each of the individual articles, possible presentation

THIS SPECIAL
sentations pects at of Language

ISSUE IS BASED ON THE Pre

the Roundtable Development was which of on Dynamic As by sponsored part of the 2006 and took Cana

Language annual and

Learning, conference This

the American roundtable

dian Associations of Applied Linguistics (AAAL

on CAAL). full-day place It at of the conference. June 20, the last day is which tracted a large and engaged audience, con a on the closing of unusual day particularly interest in this topic mir audience's ference. The rored an earlier ers of English Inc. (TESOL) where an experience to Speakers convention at the 2006 Teach of Other in Orlando, Languages, Florida,

to to find a venue a for the papers idea good The Modern When available. them publicly make an interest in showed (MLJ) Journal Language a issue on this topic,1 all con special publishing for such a pub their support tributors expressed lication stone plexity that would, in the on the one introduction set a mile hand, of new ideas on com

linguistics audience ideas.

and dynamic systems in the field of applied and, on the other hand, allow the larger to get a state-of-the-art I will of overview of these

In this introduction, the development and dynamic complexity, tory of their role in the social

on unpre symposium AAAL-sponsored Di in language by teaching, organized dictability an ane Larsen-Freeman, attracted unexpectedly for a small com It is not unusual large crowd. a new to get excited about of researchers munity interest here the in their field, but ap approach to a larger group that to have spread peared was that something sensed happening. special like it seemed in these events, the interest Given

on chaos, a focus on systems, with at lan sciences. By looking

present theories

a short his

as a dynamic system, and language develop guage to what ment as a dynamic process, we can explore and dynamics extent and how ideas on complexity can be fruitful for our field. The main character briefly more istics of dynamic several because extensive aspect, further systems will be presented of the articles will present

The Modern ?2008

0026-7902/08/166-178 $1.50/0
The Modern Language

Language

Journal, 92, ii, (2008) Journal

One of different elaborations aspects. in criticality, will be discussed self-organized since it has not figured prominently detail on the of Dynamic in the discussion application a short introduction (DST). Finally, Theory Systems a look to each of the articles will be followed by and some thoughts further. on how these ideas may

ahead

be developed

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KeesDeBot A SHORT HISTORY OF CHAOS THEORY, COMPLEXITY THEORY, AND DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY
As with most theories, it is rather difficult to the 1990s the Santa to Fe

167
systems, with study complex adaptive a role and Institute playing leading and No started for the

pinpoint line of & Lorenz's systems of Chaos

the exact thinking. 1997)

of this particular beginnings commentators Some (Schueler mention 1963 of the publication article on weather in

like John Holland top scientists attracting DST Gell-Mann. bel Prize winner Murray out as a mathematical approach purely of complex development more it is now considered proaches change. than a fixed

Schueler,

groundbreaking as the firstmilestone Theory. Lorenz

systems over time, but a set of tools and ap and all-inclusive theory of

in the development showed that, (1963)

in initial con systems, small differences complex differ ditions can lead to larger and unpredictable toWolfram ences over time. However, according to initial conditions has been sensitivity ever since the work a role in to physics play in the mid-19th of Maxwell century. (2002), shown The term here meaning to the fact that the outcomes of interac chaos has technical over time cannot lack mathematics. predicted chaos Thus, of order. As the be be is a a

are over systems systems that change Dynamic use the follow and Port time. Van Gelder (1995) we take dynam ing definition: "Roughly speaking, states to be systems with numerical ical systems over to some time according rule" that evolve (p. 5). In DST, role. sition geometrical have Systems variables. interacting an concepts important play a state is a po which phase, in a multidimensional that defines space Systems in systems are rep Changes state space. DST in the trajectories to de models and simulations computer state. are sets of

referring tions of variables using

conventional

their preset as resented

rather than unpredictability to initial result of sensitivity havior be systems even random, in the no of that exhibit though sense that

conditions, chaos the

to appears is deter system denned and

employs of systems over time. Change scribe changes typ not continuous: tend to settle in Systems ically is what as "a are called set "attractors," which can be denned in the that has a neigh space phase in which and every point stays nearby as time goes to infin the attractor 2008).

ministic contains lines

it is well

within

out emerge in initial differences is universal like researchers sentatives refers (1998) of refers order in turbulence

two main The parameters. can are chaos that Chaos Theory of variables and of the interaction random conditions, and that there in seemingly chaotic patterns, of the leading in liquids. Two can be seen as repre (1997) Holland Mandel two trends: of

borhood approaches ity" (Meiss,

systems tend to show Dynamic refers to a in which nonlinearity development, between and effects. Although discrepancy input the different theories have their own histories and foci, in many publications the labels Chaos, Systems, Nonlin Adaptive in almost often are used

the field end

these

to "the

Prigogine certainty," while to "structure from chaos."

Complexity, ear Systems,

Complex and DST

with

brot (1982) added significantlyto Chaos Theory

his discovery of fractal patterns?structures on different levels of that repeat themselves the

to refer to a class of theories. What terchangeably in common is a focus on the develop they have ment I will of complex systems over time. Here use to refer to this whole set of the term DST notions. Different applied nomics, recently, will focus aspects in a wide of DST have of been studied such as and eco

system. at what "at the happens Complexity Theory looks on chaos (Lewin, 1999). Research edge of chaos" more had shown that complex systems develop or

time and then more for some less predictably to show chaotic behavior. less suddenly begin as "a chaos of defines (1992) complexity Waldrop in which behaviors the components of the system never never lock into yet quite place, quite dissolve or either" (p. 293). is part of the study of systems, in which sys tems are studied as a whole rather than with focus turbulence DST on their parts. from the early ranging adaptive chotherapy. in Systems Theory, which emerged in many fields 1950s, has been applied ontology One branch Several to management psy is the study of complex set up in institutes were and into

on the in the field of of DST application and then further narrow my discussion cognition to the study of language development.

range and, more meteorology, oceanography, I science. In the next section, cognitive

fields,

A DYNAMICAL APPROACH
Several cation most publications of DST notions have

TO COGNITION
focused on the appli The

in human

systems.

Tim supporter outspoken van Gelder, a DST to who has defended approach a number in of influential cognition publications. as Motion: The first is the edited volume Mind

cognition. of this is probably

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168 TheModern Language Journal 92 (2008) Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition (1995),
which he edited with Robert Port. The 1998 other article publication "The is van Gelder's but they can be Traditional lin separately. ear methods of linking behavior with underlying can be mental in this processes applied approach. In the second ar van Orden (2002) approach, "nonlinear interactions gues, may occur among be looked and isolated studied processes, cognitive their environments, agents ses will Orden agents and cognitive even among cognitive themselves. If so, then empirical analy nonlinear methods" require (p. 2). Van and between can at as nonlinear,

in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) entitled

dynamical hypothesis was published along taries. Van Gelder does not in the debate. hypothesis, the most science," cognitive commen with peer eschew taking strong In his defense of the dy in

keynote

which

he claims that "Dynamics is ex used and powerful widely in science" framework (1998, p. 622). planatory commentators of the BBS Several take issue with arguably in cogni that, as yet, DST to provide explanations; at best it can describe but not ex development, it A characteristic of the Gelder, (van 1998). plain this statement tive science and cannot argue claim system cognitive Gelder mentions as a and system dynamical most commentators that van seem on

positions namical

the second and clearly favors approach, in another article on self-organization of cogni van Orden, tive performance, and Tur Holden, (2003) a nonlinear propose dynamic as an alternative for mainstream This led to a strong systems cogni reaction by Far Wagenmakers,

vey

approach tive psychology. several

researchers,

rell, and Ratcliff traditional the new theory

to agree with is that cognition three levels: the nervous system, environment. This view also has

is embedded

such as Beer and van (2000) by other researchers, a as Geert The view of (1998). cognition dynami a move cal system represents away from a strictly in which modular is viewed as approach cognition a separate module to the brain confined working in isolation. The debate over whether DST can be seen as an alternative sically tinues for existing which paradigms, van Gelder the position is defending, considerable Beer with a controversy (2000) argues community. and symbolic which play is ba con

the body, and the been expressed

that the more argue as as is to be preferred approach long the superiority of the alternative is not proven: "If (2005), science of nonlinear is truly superior systems dynamical to the current of paradigm then its proponents should compar

including who

cognitive psychology, a head-on not shy away from quantitative ison" 108). (p. What from the literature on emerges is that of DST not there an alternative.

to generate

in the that tra

are their claims, and there is overstating to abandon substantial evidence yet enough traditional in favor of a DST science cognitive approach.

this topic to consider as is a willingness DST some of the However, proponents

cognition ditional have and DST,

based

connectionist critical

a lot in common

the dynamic approach role in the con

approaches

notions: "... of regardless as the dynamical approach an alternative or an to more traditional adjunct ideas are forcing a much approaches, dynamical of the notions needed critical evaluation of repre the eventual of existing fate of sentation and computation in cognitive science"

sideration

LANGUAGE AS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AS A DYNAMICAL PROCESS

Whether to or not DST presents theories, a full alternative researchers

(p. 98). Along similar lines, Thelen and Bates (2003)

support the view that connectionist are more and systems approaches are different and similar dynamic than they the two

in lin existing cognitive have taken on guistics and language development com the theory as an interesting but basically in the of plementary study approach language processing based and

(1999) presents a DST model for language change

on attractors on different and levels. Browman

language

development.

Cooper

that a combination

of

and Goldstein
articulatory phonology are

is needed for an understanding of fundamental and mechanisms of change. Van Or processes den (2002) says that "twentieth century cognitive was built on the of linear assumption psychology an for and he that 1), argues ity" (p. approach In his view, there are this assumption. challenges to two when trying apply DST princi approaches to like word processes recognition cognitive ples or reading. In the first approach, subprocesses

movements

(1990) apply DST

related. Similarly,

to show how

of aspects cognitive van Lieshout how visual a

(2004) has applied DST

Rueckle can

production. word recognition namic perspective. The DST most to

describes (2002) be approached and direct can

in the study of speech

from dy of in

extensive

the work by Elman

language

processing

application be found

(1995, 2004);

some of his

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KeesDeBot
from traditional different that are markedly to here. will be discussed approaches language on Elman's 1995 article, a number of char Based ideas acteristics of such traditional approaches are non controversial: on discrete 1. Processing is based and context of free symbols, which means that the meaning use. of is their symbols independent rules are operators, while lexi 2. Grammatical cal elements on are lexical operate 3. Representations nature. Words dictionary independent 4. Building operands; items. (words, lexicon remain in other words, rules pect

169
of the system which the system state in cer push tain directions rather than others" (p. 195). This is rather from that of tra different perspective ditional switch field. and and a linguistics psycholinguistics, to this view will lead to a shift in the major

FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AS A DYNAMIC PROCESS

Language development of general human A can be seen as one In as their

in the of use. sentences

are static in rules) are like words in a the same over time,

development. Dynamic of Cognition

that will

proach Thelen ments

book, groundbreaking to theDevelopment and Smith at different levels

Systems Ap and Action,

words, with the words as the mortar. The explain processing most why important we need is that the

as

a wall with is like building the bricks and the rules

"We processes: with the conviction development tion of mental life is continuous cal growth also not applies seen as of form to and

that develop (1994) argue are governed by similar of human the mystery approach with that the acquisi all biologi

a new

Elman provides on theory language traditional view of mental with are no how we now

reason

to

language

processing the brain works:

is at variance There

think pas

static, discrete,

something tem, but as a part of the larger in a similar fashion.

This (p. XIII). which is development, in the cognitive sys special system that develops

function"

and maybe representations, of representations is wrong. a view on as He proposes processing language a in which the time dimen process dynamic are not static sion is crucial: elements Language use and are context change through highly sensitive. Time is seen not as the moving of the of a clock but as effects hands its representing on so time is part of the inherently processing, but rather than some external dimension. processing To show how language take development might a Elman (1995) place using dynamic approach, to trained a simple recurrent network sub predict a small set of 29 in a sentence sequent words using verbs and nouns with a corpus of 10,000 short sen tences. The that the network simulation showed an internal structure that reflects differ develops ent of word classes. and meanings approximations In other words, can induce the network lexical cat egories learn from statistical Elman simulations, tences. In subsequent regularities. can also showed that networks

sive, or context-free even the whole idea

as a First (LI) dynamic language acquisition in a has been studied process variety of ways, but a combination the dominant has been approach of microgenetic studies and computer modeling. In microgenetic studies 8c Lowie, (see Verspoor, van this issue), Dijk, fine-grained analyses of dense a rich set of informa data provide acquisitional tion that reveals all the small steps that are taken in development. ten combined show how development. are fruitful ways of simulations of language devel understanding most we The is that need opment. important point to turn our intuitions and what we know about Modeling and enhancing our into the strict language language development For to be very mathematics. that, we need of ex Child with are of data production of caretaker talk to analyses to and type of input are related

amount

sen in long-distance dependencies complex This research that a very simple it suggests can lead to a erative learning mechanism dynamic structure tributed able and of language in which Van words Gelder have a dis representation in a network that is adapt and Port "Thus inter

we think we know because it plicit about what to translate vague is nearly statements impossible into equations. We may be convinced that motiva an tion in role Second plays important Language but it is far from easy to turn (SLD), Development that idea exactly into a mathematical and when how that states equation that factor plays a role. A we need model to ask is why closest test our over answer is that this on the de hypotheses time. Language

(1995) nal representations in state locations

context-dependent. summarize Elman's

legitimate question ing and simulations.

The

symbols but or the lexicon space, dictionary is the structure in this space, and rules processing are not but the dynamics symbolic specifications

position: are not of words

is the only way we can interaction of variables

is seen as an iterative process in which velopment new to is added the and input existing knowledge to the expectations with respect are development

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170 TheModern Language Journal 92 (2008)

in to the used for the mod growth functions is no way we can set up eling. There experiments to over time, by which study development taking into account all variables a that we assume to play built outcomes role. By comparing of simulations with real developmental data, we can infer how the in over time teractions of variables taken may have is 1995). This cognitive ecosystem (van Geert, individualized system of internal and ex highly ternal resources that defines the carrying capacity, the growth potential mo of a system at a given ment can be seen in time. The carrying capacity as a notion of potential but is general growth, a relevant as lexical when growth. processes Geert (1995) can take to refers applied to such specific domains, the

more

as the description of language development the work by van Geert, who has process, dynamic been the field for more than a decade, is leading a taken here of his cussed ideas as a on starting point. The basic elements will be dis language development detail here because are as relevant

place. For

Different place these

developmental in interaction. Van

in some

issues he raises

(L2) development the area he has

as are for LI they development, on so far. One focused of the

of the many for second language

The connection be growers. tween the growers be parallel and simul may a different to have but they are taneous, likely can time path. An of connected growers example be found in a and Mervis study by Robinson at looked and vocabulary growth of plural markers. In order to combine two these and curves, Robinson developmental as Mervis used the "precursor model" proposed van Geert In a precursor there model, (1995). by are two variables, a a successor. and predecessor in the successor Growth is initially suppressed (1998), the use who by growth in until petition, the predecessor. growth possible in both a the predecessor, a threshold level After variables shares form of com in is reached is reached,

as connected

van Geert contributions has made is to re major in terms of formulate development "growth." The are that it ismath of using this concept advantages well defined ematically form it can be modeled function, functions the that from these and which is one and that a in its simplest using logistic growth of the most widely used starting point, functions complex and findings He uses over time to test the a systems. Taking

in the study of dynamic as function logistic growth take has developed into account on more

this threshold

van Geert

assumptions

relations

defined

research formulas then uses

any of the logically and by competition

language to estimate and

development.

dense

development data longitudinal of

support. In addition

fit of the model Important there needs van Geert

the data. are that growth that can grow, what structural

characteristics to be something calls the

development to social plied DST principles children and caretakers. This an

to the of the individual modeling van Geert of children, also has ap interaction interaction between is seen as

is de (p. 314), and that growth resources. In pendent language development as well as moti input and output, encouragement, and time to learn, can vation, attention, feedback, growth on be viewed ited and capacity, ited, but as resources. interlinked input, time, can be Resources in a dynamic system. Memory are all lim and motivation typically are lim

(1995) condition"

"minimal

ecosys part important cognitive tem: "A child's does however, ecosystem, cognitive not stop at the boundaries or the of the brain all aspects of the environment, body, but contains as well, insofar as that environment is accessible to and Van understood refers Geert by the child" to co-construction (1995, p. 332). as a dynami He exchange. one for the the fine for over

of the child's

in the sense compensatory they that a lack of time can, to a certain extent, be com for with or more ef higher motivation means interconnectedness of resources interact on over time: Motivation an effect external

of mutual cal process information describes how two sets of equations, in the child and the other growth tuning of the caretakers, on the child developing the caretaker not and are linked the basis

time, with

pensated fort. The that may and have

the caretaker

the resources

of the input from to the adjusting

resources role in dif will play a different Specific In the early stages ferent stages of development. of L2 development, for example, memory capacity than analytic ability, while may be more important in later terlinked stages

to the experience of success, so on. Also, more to and time, willingness spend comes the level of development into play here:

encouragement which may lead

level of development of the child. Van Geert does claim that the type of modeling he proposes can the described: phenomena explain

There

is now reasonable evidence that in spite of their can processes underlying complexity, developmental be viewed as instances of relatively simple growth mod els. It remains the organization

to be explained, of course, what it is in of the brain or of human culture that processes (p. 335) follow their par

in the opposite may be true. The resources of forms what called is system

makes

these developmental ticular growth trajectories,

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KeesDeBot SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AS A DYNAMIC PROCESS

to see the po of the first applied linguists as a model tential of complex systems adaptive in her 1997 Larsen-Freeman for SLD2 was Diane One article, "Chaos/complexity In science this article, and she second shows of dy changes put and definition also Geert the not

171
self-organizing to open is by system, which is Learning inspection. van iterations as discussed by adds an

growth

through

this issue). (1995, In her 2002 article, Larsen-Freeman

other

language acquisition." that language has all the characteristics and namic systems: It is dynamic complex over time both synchronically with different and

can be dimensions cognitive shown. This interrelatedness article that by Firth the social and Wagner dimension

out that dimension by pointing important in a DST the social and the individual approach combined who and their to the argued is a reaction (1998), in second

diachronically;

it is complex (syntacti subsystems that interact; lexical, cal, phonological, textual) is unpre and sometimes it develops nonlinearly to initial con it is sensitive dictable and chaotic; feedback-sensitive, self-organizing, in and adaptive; and there are attractors develop ment. It follows that SLD also is a dynamic process. to the discrepancy Larsen-Freeman among points ditions, open, taken

(SLA) has become acquisition the dimension. by cognitive looked Freeman (this issue) developmental noted path with

language too overshadowed Recently, at back Larsen her own

set the static rules of grammar (and by researchers over in language The courses). complex the in the many factors that shape ity is visible such as interlanguages, LI the and of between type overlap in and type of input and interaction, of learners' motivation, and age, aptitude, in what is evident

development amount and L2, amount structional so on. The is generally

there was a long 1997 article the publication of Herdina andjess that in 2002. Few researchers ner's book during to have followed Larsen-Freeman seemed period is also a out, theory building and, as she points takes and therefore social process, which dynamic that after her until silence time and Furthermore, difficult. of Her the publication Mul dina and Jessner's book, A Dynamic Model of in Psycholinguis tilingualism: Perspectives of Change In this book, tics (2002). of DST the basic notions and to SLD are their application together brought for in which various multilingualism of multilingual factors interact in the emergence awareness ism. In the model, metalinguistic plays an of the the mechanics role, important although in a model impact of metalinguistic remain poorly her various contribution awareness understood. to this in dynamic In her 2006 issue, Jessner in more de further here. Asjust mentioned, and SLD tory of DST the next milestone was in the his of conversation the availability partners. new ideas take time to settle, and shift in perspective such as this is

tion of Chaos/Complexity Theory in SLD. She

respect

to the applica

a fundamental

context,

of SLD nonlinearity to as in behavior" referred "U-shaped tense of regular and of the past the acquisition system is typi interlanguage irregular verbs. The in that on the basis of input, cally self-organizing the learner that reflects a system highly idiosyncratic develops of her de the unique characteristics warns (1997) to the direct respect theories against applicability over of

velopmental path. Larsen-Freeman

DST
did

optimism

with

in SLD, but she, similar towhat Beer (2000)

in cognition, shows that a DST to some leads ques pertinent perspective of the hard questions tions regarding SLD. One concerns of acquisition. Larsen the mechanisms points out that in contrast to the views on

for current

modeling book and discusses

Freeman

issues solves one of the core input, which in language but also (for a different, acquisition view, see Mohanan, 1992). DST-inspired a crucial From an SLD perspective, issue iswhat constitutes As Larsen-Freeman (1997) learning. of the

on innateness, com based language acquisition can emerge from the repeated applica plexity to the tion of simple procedures that the point in the output exceeds the complexity complexity

tail; therefore, The growing for SLD Bilingualism: of a keynote by Ellis, Pienemann, emerged and the discussed cial the issue: role the social

of the model aspects it will not be discussed awareness

and multilingual

of the potential of DST in is reflected processing

and Cognitions Language publishing article with peer commentaries (in de 8c Lowie, Bot, Verspoor, 2007, with commentaries Ionin, from and Lantolf, Larsen-Freeman, van Geert). A number the interaction and between contributions Liceras, of issues

commentators, in the in SLA of the relation innate

the authors among most of them are

is not linear growth out, points learning simple on the basis of are backslides, stag input; there and jumps, and like the unpredictability nations, it is not clear which of avalanches, instances of input or instruction Learning lead is the to which interaction instances between of in

to this spe MLJ the cognitive and 8c Cameron), (Larsen-Freeman features (Plaza language should be handled (Verspoor and informal modeling (van

Pust), how variation et al.), and formal Geert).

learning.

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172 TheModern Language Journal 92 (2008)

From there how all seems can of these overviews and discussions, to examine and characteristic have taken ious fields, SOC of such SOC states, some have researchers In var attested been to be be sufficient ground effects as evidence of SOC.

the various they

characteristics

that applied as an has emerged in the gen notion important eral literature on chaos, and dynamic complexity, so not but that far has attracted the atten systems, tion of SLD is self-organized researchers, criticality (SOC). Several aspects of SLD seem to be exam there ples of such self-organized criticality, and fore a more detailed in be order may explanation here.

of dynamic systems to SLD. One issue

phenomena that patterns of development follow by showing van Orden the power et al. (2003) law. Likewise, over time in at reac have looked changes simple to show that tion time also fit experiments they with fore can the power law pattern and that be seen as evidence of SOC they there in human

In a critical evaluation of van Orden cognition. et al. (2003), and Ratcliff Farrell, Wagenmakers, that the fact that the data show (2005) argued a power law pattern is no real proof for the ex of SOC istence in cognition since that kind of can sources from various and pattern emerge

SELF-ORGANIZED
The organize idea and

CRITICALITY
self de

to that many tend systems become critical over time was the metaphor he used to

can be

veloped by the Danish physicist Per Bak. Bak is

best known SOC: are from on the "sand (1996). When pile" grains a table, a pile will cone-shaped sand is added the grain by grain, and such steeper a level explain of sand

cognition. given with proach We

more traditional theories on by state that the account of SOC They van Orden et al. is even by underspecified, to an in the which SOC way respect ap explained does actually apply to human cognition:

dropped When develop. slope until

of the pile will become steeper a critical it reaches level. When the next one will cause

on the grain of sand dropped or more in other avalanches; a critical state. the system has reached words, Sys tems in such critical states show behav specific is reached, pile ior: they are highly unstable, and their behavior is unpredictable. in the relation between Also, of outcomes and sand) (avalanches) put (grains one can cause a or is nonlinear: grain large start they small avalanche, and once avalanches

hazard to guess that the authors' view is that the slow driving of SOC systems (cf. adding grains of sand to the pile) corresponds to the gradual accrual of in formation and that when the threshold is passed, the

in sand pile). After (cf. avalanches system responds the response ismade, the state of the system is re laxed, and the process of information accrual starts a new stimulus is presented, (p. 114)

again when

cause more and Models may larger avalanches. on these to a based have been principles applied wide variety of processes, such as forest fires, epi and neural networks. Self demics, earthquakes, organizing neural networks that are

nition and

et al. conclude that the ideas put Wagenmakers van Orden are et forward al. and by interesting but that a specific model in which challenging, to is applied SOC of human cog specific aspects has to state changes of systems. For language learn restructuring be various could Krashen's ing, examples given: "din in the head," and Spada's (1983) Lightbown The (1999) and Bahrick's (1984) retention. yet to be developed. idea of SOC is related

in a state of

to be able to to appear criticality quickly adapt new situations. Bak's ideas on SOC have been very influential in different but he fields of research, and his followers also met with fierce resistance to their ideas (see e.g., Jensen, is hard to 1998). SOC it is the result of many prove because interacting over time. variables working One of the characteristics of systems exhibit is that ing SOC follows so-called that there ber of changes How changes: with a constant small effect ones? sizes a that they show specific pattern laws. Simply, this means power is a specific relation between the num and the size of these taking place are there many large avalanches addition of grains, and how many transformations of numbers and Log lead to a linear relation between fre are

described sian

refers to a phenomenon first (1983) Barber. She reports on a by Elizabeth visit to Russia where she had to use the little Rus Krashen she had to communicate unusual: with her hosts. She noticed

"breakthrough," for language "permastore"

something

Russian have

By the third day also, the linguist inme was noticing a rising din of Russian in my head: words, sounds, intonations, phrases, all swimming about in the voices of the people I talked with_My overall command of would improved more in a single week than it in a month or two of intensive reading. (Barber,

1980, p. 30) With Krashen his infallible called which talent takes to find a label, catchy in the head" a learner

and size, the so-called Gutenberg-Richter quency Law Because law effects 1996). (Bak, power

(1983)

this the "Din place

phenomenon,

after

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KeesDeBot
a of extensive through period input pro no obvious seem to sentences reason, cessing. For as if the system has reached in the head build has gone a critical stage into productive search providing is available. at but tem. will least does not that turns receptive knowledge. evidence the Unfortunately, for this interesting idea knowledge no re idea

173
the dynamical approach is not some wholly new way of doing research that is separate from all existing re in cognitive science and hopes to search paradigms displace approach tual map them. Rather, to see that there is a dynamical is to see a way of redrawing one's concep of cognitive science in accordance with the various forms of existing

However,

that input suggests lead to gradual changes rather it builds up to a critical and massive It suggests or

is intriguing and in a second language stage in the system, that leads of the sys itself system that into

deepest similarities between research, (p. IX)

to a sudden

restructuring

develop

receptive productive Another Lightbown

that the language in such a way self-organize is turned automatically knowledge knowledge. version of and

In terms, taking a DST practical the study of language development a shift of focus, as Larsen-Freeman out point shift away in their contribution from

perspective at least leads and Cameron

on to

to this issue.

It is a

"Breakthrough": because proficiency tion seems to fall stantial point eign research to the fact language and

(1999) Spada the idea of a in place.

this restructuring is what to as the refer sudden is no students jump informa real in

studies of large-scale comparative effects and from the type of experi single-factor mental reductionism that has dominated parts of in the last decades. Two examples may and Meng (2006) clarify this point. Macaro on a on the effect of report study code-switching on words learners of English learning by Chinese as a the Macaro Language. Foreign Interestingly, was and Meng part of a symposium presentation at the 2006 AAAL on the role of the conference field to help LI LI in language teaching, sentations listed variables use: 1. Attitudes 2. Level toward LI, L2, and and several an that have of the pre on impact our

all the disconnected There on this, but informal

sub

that advanced going

inquiries of a for

recall

Lightbown

is not With the sys nonuse, through tem can fall apart the feeling of having again. Also, a to is not related directly breakthrough language it is not the case that knowing 3,500 proficiency; structures and being able to perform words basic will the per hypothesis and to hypothesis have been suggested explain of retention skills (Bahrick, long-term language is The claim that there is a 1984; Neisser, 1984). in at which the system is re development in such a way that becomes knowledge and almost immune rather than sensi state phase in common all change. What is that the state or fac of the law to this experience. the threshold Similarly, lead

also Spada irreversible:

through indicate

such a phase. that the break

mastore

3. Age 4. Type of learners 5. Amount of code-switching 6. Teachers' beliefs 7. Individual 8. Definition setting Macaro switching, and Meng and they focused compared

of proficiency of learners

of learners

code-switching and teachers

and use

of L1/L2

learning styles of learners as of classroom interactive

point

organized very stable

on one three

is not related to a phase specific parameter tor, but results from the self-organization system. The idea that have variation interesting variation. and of not research is whether follows

tive to loss, a major these changes have

aspect, code conditions:

a power

pattern may our about thinking on large deviations One in of the lines future to a the near leads

for consequences We tend to focus on the to be small ones.

the translation of a (i.e., giving code-switching a definition word in the LI), in the L2 giving the translation in the LI, and giving a def plus in the L2 only. inition In a carefully designed no differences quasi-experimental among study, the conditions disappointing were found, which was of course for the researchers, but not really In an FL classroom many variables surprising: play a role in the of and the use acquisition vocabulary, factors

developed

target language of smaller and pattern larger that show a power law pattern sugges changes tive of an SOC state for the system in language input development.

is to be to many other likely secondary that play a role in the process. In a way, itwould have been if such a surprising single fac tor had in success. differences explained learning This is not a critique of the Macaro and Meng iswell and carried out care study, which designed fully. The fallacy of null effect found focusing single there are clearly many setting in which factors. tially relevant on a merely the supports in factor explaining poten

of the LI

DST AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In Gelder their and introduction Port (1995) to Mind stress that as Motion, van

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174 TheModern Language Journal 92 (2008)

The guage pean a on lan example, study English seven Euro in adolescents in proficiency countries for a full de 2004, (see Bonnet, second are used time and to show how over emerges development and variations large shape Bak argues, there is no Therefore, how small

of the study), is from a DST problematic reasons. for but different The perspective prob to be that the focus was lem with this study seemed scription too much learners. was one dents on the group rather than on individual In the the present author study, in which more of the researchers, than 12,000 stu tested on language proficiency an extensive tests. In addition, ques so contact language through media, and school charac status, attitudes, were from a re on their

the process. reason to worry about because large variations not need a do they specific explanation?this is how systems work universally. Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, however, as well as van Geert issue), et al. argue for detailed and Verspoor can account of what for the variation a specific out focus on phases with

(this anal over large

were

yses time with variation. As

with different tionnaire cioeconomic teristics was The search

pointed

administered. disappointing reasons. for various

2004; Wagenmakers can only prove through titative research iments empirical research.

authors by various a new et al., 2005) showing and, On

(Jordan, paradigm

itself by

outcomes

One is that perspective came out as a very "country" important explana to link other itwas not possible tory variable, while to of the very large set used variables explain what The other was that only a country actually meant. of variance could (17-25%) very limited amount to Macaro be explained. So in contrast and Meng in this study, there were many variables (2006), but the impact of most of these variables could not be shown. likely that individual tracks are influenced the target learners' by factors devel like It is very

according the basis

its superiority to some, quan of monolingual

2002; Rueckle, (Holden, 2002), exper can be set up to show the relevance of for core aspects DST of applied such linguistics, as but there is a certain risk bilingual processing, too to strict set jumping quickly experimental on at "Concentration tings: experimental design the formative stage of model building brings ob in vious detail to the fore. That makes all into p. 237). it difficult the other to sub intuition, metaphor apply tle understandings that go (Holland, building" that while we gued our 1998, and

opmental contact with socioeconomic these

insightful model It could be ar

factors, interact

factors the claim

different ports

for individual

and attitudes, language, of how but the patterns over time are likely to be learners. This finding sup and Cameron of de

of Larsen-Freeman on individual on One research and

should

we (this issue) and Verspoor et al. (this issue) that

focus more therefore variation. patterns intra-individual of the discussed and

understanding we may not have reached a stage in development, can be set which meaningful up to experiments in of a DST show the relevance compe approach to current models and tition with or in addition accounts.

are in making leaps forward for of the relevance language

and velopment inter-individual dimensions ent is that specific in complex

of the SOC patterns systems

intriguing earlier

of variation

as part of these patterns; not need a specific explanation, more than small changes. As Bak of

may be inher are that large changes do such, large changes or at any rate not

THE RELEVANCE OF A DST APPROACH TO OTHER SUBFIELDS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

In this introduction, the focus has been on SLD

to the exam it, referring (1996) puts narra extinction of species, the "specific ple but the each tives may explain large catastrophe, not to be confused with periodicity, sug regularity, same mechanisms work on all scales, that the gests

that the DST model mainly, but it could be argued can be to various other aspects. Language applied is a prime of a dy example policy development In two issues of the MLJ, various namic process. aspects of language policy have been and U.S. discussed 2005, extensively: heritage vol. 89, edited by Heidi languages Byrnes) (Winter,

the extinctions every day, to taking place the Cambrian the largest one, causing explosion, of all species" of up to 95 percent the extinction a way, this clashes with one of the ma (p. 18). In in perspective that Larsen-Freeman jor changes et al. (this and Cameron (this issue) and Verspoor from a focus on studies issue) suggest: microgenetic the role of context and environment in which is taken into account and in which narratives

over variables many interacting to initial conditions, nonlinearity, gence

vol. 2007, (Summer, policy language As the arti Blake and Claire Kramsch). by Robert cles in these issues show, political systems display of dynamic all the characteristics systems, with time, and sensitivity the emer

foreign 91, edited

of seem from the implication of complexity No Child rules and procedures (e.g., ingly simple of the development Left Behind policy). Analysis

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KeesDeBot
framework the DST using a of the and present picture more than accurate that is process developmental as to a linear analysis presented policy approach for the analysis of framework in Cooper's (1989) activities. planning language of language policies be elucidating discourse may applied and Stelma Cameron (2004) analysis. to the use of metaphors, ideas from DST applied that many other aspects showed and their analyses could and be Knox show and fruitfully (2005) all studied have from Another area in which DST be

175
The statis of the system" trinsic dynamics (p. 57). are very advanced, in these approaches tics used as a source at variation but the idea of looking to a is central of information perspec dynamic on time tive, not only in developmental processes scales ation

may

is

on short-term vari years, but also spanning in standard techniques language processing is So there and naming. like word recognition a need involved to at least a grasp of develop in this line of development. the

clearly statistics

of discourse perspective. As Burns guage

this lan of

THE CONTRIBUTIONS
The from wide contributors different to of

IN THIS ISSUE
this special the world issue and come from

classrooms

argued, the characteristics

for the analysis of processes systems, dynamic DST may provide in the classroom, of interaction at the individ a new framework in which learning ual and group levels for LI can be connected. can be Accord along by that ingly, language the lines set out van Geert. define instruction studied

Instruction

development proposed is part of the resources although variables

possible a role in instruction can be relevant The reduced

and growth, potential to include all possible to a smaller

it is im that play

a parts back and paradigmatic range of theoretical an interest in the ap they share is grounds. What in the study of lan DST of principles plication sense. The in broadest the guage development one can be in two groups, contributions arranged on issues (van methodological focusing largely 8c Cameron; Larsen-Freeman Geert; Verspoor on theoret more et al.) and the other focusing ical issues (Ellis, Plaza-Pust, Jessner). van Geert from several takes Paul episodes to ex Glass the Carroll's Lewis Looking Through plain which some of the basic in his view has behind DST, thinking the momen developed In particular, for our understand not

in a model,

the complexity of variables number has

for learning. field of multilingual in the our Various

ably

immensely enhanced mind.

processing and has last decades understanding of

grown consider

the multi

tum it deserves.

Gelder and Port (1995) and Elman (1995, 2004),

view the established such a perspective challenges on stable representa as operations of processing is a large issue that goes well beyond tions. This the scope of our field, but it is likely to have an impact as a to study language for new methodologies dy on static represen namic system that is not based is always that language tation but in the notion on the move and that change In on different language time scales. some new use is language have been to in the near future. There will be a need

neuro-imaging techniques success to show with varying applied sub and neural between the relation processing strates (see de Bot, 2008, for a critical review). A somewhat raises new and maybe DST perspective in detail by van As discussed unsettling questions. lingual have been

in systems, there is no Van Geert explains of a dy the steps to be taken for the construction on a model of namic system for the L2. His focus is and growth ing of change rival theory at the moment. or While acknowledging growth development. of systems, van Geert, interconnectedness in contrast with what Larsen-Freeman what Cameron cation arrive the some and

that we need argues propose, simplifi in order to and some form of reductionism models of development of the constructs over that

is one proficiency still can be used, although time. L2 a whole is to find

at manageable

range of issues. the "evolution rules"

it is a simplification of The aim of the models that might takes scales explain on vari place tend to interact. it is useful and to see how

the dynamics. Development ous time scales, and these Therefore, look according on at variation at one levels. all

to van Geert, those scales

science, cognitive to develop taken such

steps

(2002) argues "A means variation analysis: of a characteristic existence

for a move

paradigms. from means analysis

Holden

variation on other LI

analysis assumes the time sources is con in vari

level has an impact on variation In the last section of his contribu some details about a model for

pronunciation additive that is shrouded by unsystematic, a of noise. contrast, analysis variability By cerned with identifying systematic changes ability; it assumes that variability is informative,

in of changes the pattern that it may reflect the in

to empirical data. that is related acquisition Cameron and Lynne Diane Larsen-Freeman of a change focus on the specific requirements to research method from a traditional approach a to one in applied by inspired linguistics ology perspective. Their main points are that the

tion, he provides

DST

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176 TheModern Language Journal 92 (2008)

notion of causality has to be redefined and that co a better out be label. may They point adaptation in systems also changes that the natural variation of causality and explanation. to the attention is needed or of skills we the context provide challenge thinking a are cannot these skills or behaviors In situ inter be of use. list of ation with function universal and of UG between stability and change or constraints as stabiliz as potential

our

perspective more addition, atedness ested of in, since

the behaviors

open per change. on UG as a part of the system spective language that is not completely but interacts encapsulated with other aspects of language and the social en vironment Ulrike in which Jessner, one it is used. of the of "early adopters" of that

ing factors in agents

principles functional This

categories leads to a more

independent interpreted Larsen-Freeman and Cameron methodological of the largely search a number principles

that of

ways accepted in the social sciences of approaches of SLD

many re about in ap

DST
cusses was

plied linguistics in particular. They end by listing

that may better mative picture as a help us form a For col dynamic process. data longitudinal

generally

and

the Dynamic first presented

in the field ofmultilingualism and SLD, dis

Model in Herdina Jessner Multilingualism and Jessner (2002). for an argues impor awareness in the de even and in DST though, formaliza terms

In her

contribution,

experiments, lection, and different in Verspoor

dense

discussed with

as ways of studying variation et al. are mentioned, along

tant role for metalinguistic of languages, multiple velopment as she admits, the implementation awareness tion of metalinguistic

is

computer modeling. Wander and Marijn Lowie, Verspoor, Marjolijn van on earlier research variation compare Dijk to variation based in SLD with a new approach as a source on DST of in that takes variation formation rather than as noise. us about and process are indicators argue of interaction a that variation informs argument the dynamics that differences The is of in

still underdeveloped. She supports her arguments on third with data from a recent study language of in Tyrol who show interesting learners patterns interaction The overview between of and within articles in this special the role DST systems. language a rich issue provide and related models Research lines: will de

and lines of thinking do play and will play in

velop the field of applied three along language collection, tion and linguistics. interrelated on work of analysis data of dense

the developmental ranges of variation opment. natural These outcome and in SLD,

authors

of steps of devel is the that variation of variables in de there may be "free so issue among

development

the basis

velopment variation"

that therefore

Using

ciolinguists a case

hotly debated in language interested study of

ing skills different

as an

example, new methods

development. the development of writ et al. show how Verspoor can be used to describe

language and variation will be studied on different opment of lan and decline time scales, from the growth over the life span, to variation guage proficiency

on varia focusing experimental of of variables, and modeling interactions use and Devel language development.

to and language learning. According perception, affects leads to change, Ellis's cycle, usage change affects learning, learning perception perception, he and so on. In his contribution, affects usage, links individual on lar processes the old idea and diachronic and change the societal variation level, between change and with simi reintroducing synchronic language

of variation. patterns a rich Nick Ellis presents of the emer picture a in learners of SLD from adult gence dynamic of use, language cycle language language change,

from weeks in developmental processes ranging on the level of the millisec to years, to variation as a tasks. Applied ond in experimental linguistics

is concerned with the development field basically of systems, be they individual learners, classes, eth The DST nic groups, or policy makers. perspective allows us to look at those systems in a structured tools way, with many in other fields waiting and instruments employed to be developed in ours.

of a connection language

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is indebted to Ludmila Isurin, Wander and two ML] reviewers for Verspoor, on earlier versions of this contribution.

development. In her contribution, for a the chaos link between turbulent have mirror (UG). mirror not sal Grammar

a DST

Plaza-Pust argues and Univer approach of the metaphor She uses to describe and the order systems. As she indicates, in entering very keen and their unpredictable argues for a medi

Carolina

Lowie, Marjolijn their comments

that characterize been worlds

NOTES
1 We are grateful role in the process. to Heidi Byrnes for her mediating

"linguists turbulent landscapes"

(p. 250).

Plaza-Pust

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KeesDeBot
2The stead of the more term Second Language traditional is used in Development term Second Language growth and decline?that are both aspects Holden,

177
of response J. (2002). Fractal characteristics time variability. Ecological Psychology, 14, 53-86. Holland, J. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Read ing,MA: Perseus Books. Jensen, H. (1998). Cambridge University Press. Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh, UK: Edin Self-organized criticality. Cambridge:

Acquisition is, acquisition development.

to capture both and attrition?which

of

REFERENCES
Bahrick, H. (1984). Fifty years of second language at research. for programmatic trition: Implications Modern Language Journal, 68, 105-118. Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The

burgh University Press. Jessner, U. (2008). The role ofmetalinguistic knowledge in L2 and L3 development: A dynamic systems theory perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92, 270-283. Jordan, G. (2004). acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Theory construction in second language John Ben in the head, input, and device. Foreign Language

science of self

organized criticality.New York: Copernicus. and applied Barber, E. (1980). Language acquisition ADFL 26-32. 12, Bulletin, linguistics. to cognitive sci Beer, R. (2000). Dynamical approaches

jamins. S. (1983). The din Krashen, the language acquisition Annals, 16, 41-44.

ence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 91-99. skills Bonnet, G. (Ed.). (2004). The assessment ofpupils countries 2002. Paris: in English in eight European European Network of policy makers for the evalu systems. Browman, C, 8cGoldstein, L. (1990). Gestural specifica tion using dynamically defined articulatory struc ation of education

D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science Larsen-Freeman, and second language acquisition. Applied Linguis tics, 18, 141-165. Larsen-Freeman, language D. (2002). Language and acquisition use from a theory per chaos/complexity (Ed.), Language acquisition spective. In C. Kramsch London: and language socialization (pp. 33-46). D., 8c Cameron, language

clusters in Cameron, L., 8c Stelma, J. (2004). Metaphor discourse. Journal ofApplied Linguistics, 1, 7-36. Carroll, L. (1895). Through the looking glass. London: Macmillan. Cooper, D. (1999). Linguistic attractors: The cognitive dy namics of language acquisition and change. Amster Cooper, John Benjamins. dam/Philadelphia: R. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2008). The imaging of what in the mul tilingual mind? Second Language Research, 24{A), 111-133.

tures. Journal ofPhonetics, 18, 299-320. Burns, A, 8c Knox, J. (2005). Classrooms as complex sys tems:An emergent research agenda. Paper presented at AILA World Congress, Madison, WI.

Continuum. Larsen-Freeman,

L. (2008). Research from a development Modern complex theory perspective. Language Journal, 92, 200-213. Lewin, R. (1999). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. methodology on

de Bot, K.

nal ofAtmospheric Sciences, 20, 130-141. Macaro, E., & Meng, Q. (2006). The effectof teacher use of LI on Chinese EFL learners' vocabulary acquisition. at the 2006 AAAL conference, Paper presented Montreal. B. (1982). The fractal geometry ofnature. New Mandelbrot, York: W. H. Freeman. Meiss,J. uary (2008) About Sci.nonlinear FAQ. Accessed Jan 12, 2008 from http://amath.colorado.edu/ of in complexity C. Ferguson, (Eds.), Phono

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. P., 8c Spada, N. (1999). How Lightbown, languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. flow.Jour Lorenz, E. (1963). Deterministic non-periodic

de Bot, K., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2007). A Dynamic to second language ac Systems Theory approach and Cognition, quisition. Bilingualism: Language 10, 7-21. Ellis, N. (2008). The dynamics of second language emer gence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. Modern Language Jour nal, 92, 232-249. as a dynamical Elman, J. (1995). Language system. In as motion: R. Port 8c T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind Explorations of the dynamics of cognition (pp. 195 225). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. lexi Elman, J. (2004). An alternative view of the mental Firth, A, con. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 301-306. 8cWagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No tres

faculty/jdm/faq.html K. Mohanan, (1992). Emergence

In phonological development. L. Menn, 8c C. Stoel-Gammon

research, implications logical development: Models, Timonium, MD: York Press. (pp. 635-662). Neisser, U. (1984). Interpreting Harry Bahrick's discov confers immunity against forgetting? ery: What Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General, 113, 32 35. C. (2008). Universal Systems Theory: to development Grammar and Dynamic up a turbulent mirror Holding in grammars. Modern Language

Plaza-Pust,

passing! Modern Language Journal, 82, 91-94. P., 8c Jessner, U. Herdina, (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Perspectives of change in psycholin guistics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Journal, 92, 250-269. I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos and Prigogine, the new laws of nature. New York: Free Press.

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

178 TheModern Language Journal 92 (2008)

Robinson, B. 8cMervis, C. (1998). language grammatical development: acquisition Modeling using and early Disentangling lexical and extension of Psychology, van Gelder, T. & Port, R. (1995). It's about time: An to cognition. overview of the dynamical approach In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations Cambridge, van Lieshout, P. (2004). systems theory and Dynamical its application in speech. In B. Maassen, R. Kent, H. Peters, P. van Lieshout, & W. Hulstijn (Eds.), Speech motor control in normal and disordered speech (pp. 51-82). Oxford: Oxford van Orden, G. (2002). Nonlinear and psy cholinguistics. Ecological Psychology, 14, 1-4. van Orden, G., Holden, (2003). J., & Turvey, M. of cognitive performance. Jour Self-organisation dynamics 350. Verspoor, nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 331 University Press. in thedynamics of cognition (pp. 1-45). MA: MIT Press.

case-study methodology. 34, 363-375.

Developmental

Rueckle, J. (2002). The dynamics of visual word recog nition. Ecological Psychology, 14, 5-19. Schueler, G., 8c Schueler, B. (1997). The chaos of Jung's 20, 2008 from http:// psyche. Retrieved March www.schuelers.com/ChaosPsyche/par_l_3htm. and dy Thelen, E., & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism namic systems: Are they really different? Develop mental Science, 6, 378-391. Thelen, Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. E., &

van Geert, P. (1995). Growth dynamics in development. In R. Port 8c T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 313 337). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Book. van Geert, P. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky and developmental Review, 5, 634-677. beyond. Psychological Explorations

M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variabil from a dynamic systems per ity in L2 development Modern spective. Language Journal, 92, 214-231. E., Farrell, S., & Ratcliff, R. (2005). Hu Wagenmakers, man cognition and a pile of sand: A discussion on serial correlations ity. Journal 108-116.

van Geert, P. (2008). The Dynamic Systems approach in the study of LI and L2 acquisition: An introduc tion. Modern Language Journal, 92, 179-199. van Gelder, T. (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cog and Brain Sciences, 21, nitive science. Behavioral 615-628.

and self-organized critical General, 134, Experimental Psychology: of

M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at Waldrop, the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon 8c Schuster. S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, Wolfram, IL: Wolfram Media.

Survey of Doctoral
The annual and

Degrees

Soon To Be Available

Online

and linguistics, in foreign cultures, literatures, survey of doctoral languages, granted degrees in the fall issue of the in the United education in foreign States, which appears usually language to its readers as a service since 1926. For the last 30 years, has been by the journal published MLJ, Dr. Benseler has this extensive and has been P. Benseler Dr. David listing. However, editing compiling decided the new would to hand editorial over office our this feature and will sincerest starting be made the listing from now on will be compiled this year, and by on our new Web We site at http://mlj.miis.edu/. available to the MLJ to Dr. Benseler for his long service and the appreciation

like to extend

profession.

This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions